O'Donoghue Not Guilty of Murder

Wacker · 17-01-2008 05:50PM

Dinter wrote: »

Getting overwrought in a victim impact statement is not wrong. I think it's telling how some people explain away all of O'Donoghue's actions with "well what would you do in his situation" but far fewer people try to empathise with the mother.

No one here has suggested that what Wayne O'Donoghue did was right, so there isn't really any need to point out that what he did was wrong. I'm never going to agree with you regarding the sentencing, but that is neither here nor there. However, using a victim impact staement to imply that Wayne O'Donoghue was a paedophile, when the evidence doesn't reflect this at all and knowing that many people will believe it and thus make Wayne's life a heck of a lot harder than it was going to be anyway (given the circumstances) is wrong.
Just because it wasn't as bad as what Wayne did doesn't make it right.

RebelRockChick · 17-01-2008 06:03PM

It's a loss for both families, if you've seen Wayne's father in the paper, the whole thing has completely aged him.

The one thing that has completely sickened me is the media....TV3 (or more specifically Paul Byrne) right outside O' Donoghue's house.....they have already had to move a few times, which obviously has it's reasons behind it and now today one of the tabloids decide to post a picture of their home. Can they not leave them alone ffs, they have to try and get on with their own lives aswell.

O' Donoghue has served the sentence handed down to him and now he has to try and get on with his life and having to live with the guilt of what he did. I honestly don't think he can come back to Midleton to live.

I agree with what someone said about the statement he released. If he hadn't of said anything they would still be something said about it.

Dinter · 17-01-2008 06:05PM

I don't think that a Victim Impact Statement is the place to introduce new "evidence" but I can't fault the mother for doing so. I could easily imagine myself having to see the person responsible my son's death and getting worked up over it. I think she spoke more from anger at the "injustice" as she saw it than any attempt to blacken O'Donoghue's reputation. That's a bit of a long game for a grief stricken mother to be playing.

As for making O'Donoghue's life harder? How would any inference of paedophilia make a child killers life harder? It was never going to be easy.

It's shown with the posts commenting on his chances of taking libel actions against newspapers. He has very little chance of succeeding as he has very little reputation to defend or to have impugned.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 17-01-2008 06:11PM

I think its time that even the liberals in Ireland grew some balls and thought of the victims of crime and stop making excuses for the perpetrators of crime.

Stop making life cushy for our criminals.

Grow some balls.

Dudess · 17-01-2008 06:19PM

Like I said, I can totally understand what Robert's mother did - of course she was going to do it considering the agony she must have been in. But it was incorrect.

Wacker · 17-01-2008 06:21PM

Dinter wrote: »

As for making O'Donoghue's life harder? How would any inference of paedophilia make a child killers life harder? It was never going to be easy.

If half the stories that I hear about prisons are true, then the way that inmates treat someone who accidently killed a kid are very different to the way they treat child abusers.

Dinter · 17-01-2008 06:24PM

Yep and so she made some inflammatory comments.

As against manslaughter and obstruction of justice.

ejmaztec · 17-01-2008 06:24PM

Dudess wrote: »

Like I said, I can totally understand what Robert's mother did - of course she was going to do it considering the agony she must have been in. But it was incorrect.

Did anyone refute, or expand on what she had to say, or the reason for subject matter not being brought up in court?

Mrs Roy Keane · 17-01-2008 06:26PM

Eire 4Ever wrote: »

All we have to go on is O Donoghue's story about what happened the day he killed Robert so we don't know it happened that way or not.

All i know is an 11 year old boy is dead and his killer is now a free man after only serving 3 years is this fair in my opinion no

Yes i agree we only have Wayne's story

I also agree that 3 years is not a fair senetence

Dinter · 17-01-2008 06:28PM

Wacker wrote: »

If half the stories that I hear about prisons are true, then the way that inmates treat someone who accidently killed a kid are very different to the way they treat child abusers.

I don't think that was the aim there was at all.

I presume she thought it might go some way towards reducing the leniency of the sentence. Something I can fully support.

PeakOutput · 17-01-2008 06:52PM

Mairt wrote: »

I think its time that even the liberals in Ireland grew some balls and thought of the victims of crime and stop making excuses for the perpetrators of crime.

Stop making life cushy for our criminals.

Grow some balls.

no1 is making excuses for the criminals. the only people making excuses are the ones using it as an excuse to say he deserves to die this is reason to top himself this is why he should never be left alone.

the problem is not with wayne o'donoghue although he is getting the brunt of it. if you have a problem with his sentence then your problem is with the judge.

what sentence do you think someone who goes threw a pedestrian crossing without looking and knocks down a pedestrian by accident should get? because from my understanding they can be sentenced to manslaughter aswell. manslaughter from its definition(that iv read of it in the legal discussions thread) accepts that what happened was an accident with no malice or intent.

someone who ACCIDENTLY kills someone(be it child or adult or granny or gandhi) does not deserve more than 3 years in prison imo. you can say oh but he killed a child etc etc etc yes he did but it was an accident.

as i said already there will never be agreement between the two sides as one uses their heart(not their balls mairt) and the other uses their head. i cant remember if i said this already but you cant run a country with your heart

PeakOutput · 17-01-2008 06:54PM

Mrs Roy Keane wrote: »

Yes i agree we only have Wayne's story

thats not all we have heard we have heard the evidence that convicted him of manslaughter which funnily enough as pointed out already BACKS UP waynes version of what happened.

Boggles · 17-01-2008 07:02PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

what sentence do you think someone who goes threw a pedestrian crossing without looking and knocks down a pedestrian by accident should get? because from my understanding they can be sentenced to manslaughter aswell. manslaughter from its definition(that iv read of it in the legal discussions thread) accepts that what happened was an accident with no malice or intent.

someone who ACCIDENTLY kills someone(be it child or adult or granny or gandhi) does not deserve more than 3 years in prison imo. you can say oh but he killed a child etc etc etc yes he did but it was an accident.

Fair Point.

And the sentance is normally harsher if it was a hit and run.

Now lets say you drive through a red light because you weren't looking, you knock down and kill a person. There is no one around, so you put the person in your boot, drive up the mountains and dispose of the person.

Now you know the police have a partial reg and you know that it won't be long before they come knocking. 2 weeks later you give yourself up and tell them where the decomposed body is.

Is 3 years fair?

PeakOutput · 17-01-2008 07:10PM

Boggles wrote: »

Is 3 years fair?

first of all you can use emotive words like "decomposed" rat eaten etc etc all you want its irrelavant. if it was put in a freezer and kept clean would you feel differently towards them? i doubt it however they are nice strong words tabloids use to provoke unsavoury imagery in our heads.

secondly. i would fell 3 years for the manslaughter of the person you knocked down would be unfair to you BUT when you add up the other charges that could arise like obstruction of justice leaving the scene of an accident etc etc then i think 3 years would fair alright.

i dont think people realise how horrible 3 years in actual prison would be(not to mind how horrible facing the public will be again when you have such scandolous journalism doing its best to turn the tide of public opinion against you)

Boggles · 17-01-2008 07:17PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

first of all you can use emotive words like "decomposed" rat eaten etc etc all you want its irrelavant. if it was put in a freezer and kept clean would you feel differently towards them?

I would say almost definately the family would be much happier, also forensic evidence would be perserved. So very relevant.

In Roberts case

"Det Garda Carey said that the body was lying downhill, with the legs almost vertical, and the head and upper torso inside a black refuse sack. There was evidence of tissue damage to the legs and hips caused by animals. "

The Tabloids don't have to spin how gruesome the details in the case were.

Boggles · 17-01-2008 07:20PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

i dont think people realise how horrible 3 years in actual prison would be(not to mind how horrible facing the public will be again when you have such scandolous journalism doing its best to turn the tide of public opinion against you)

It's not supposed to be a nice place, you are being punished, not given 3 years in Butlins.

Dinter · 17-01-2008 07:21PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

first of all you can use emotive words like "decomposed" rat eaten etc etc all you want its irrelavant. if it was put in a freezer and kept clean would you feel differently towards them? i doubt it however they are nice strong words tabloids use to provoke unsavoury imagery in our heads.

secondly. i would fell 3 years for the manslaughter of the person you knocked down would be unfair to you BUT when you add up the other charges that could arise like obstruction of justice leaving the scene of an accident etc etc then i think 3 years would fair alright.

i dont think people realise how horrible 3 years in actual prison would be(not to mind how horrible facing the public will be again when you have such scandolous journalism doing its best to turn the tide of public opinion against you)

First of all if you ran someone over because you went through a red light without looking you would get longer than 3 years.

Secondly that would not be classified as an accident no more than O'Donoghues crime was. Manslaughter and accidental death are miles apart legally.

I don't think you realise how horrible it would be to be strangled to death by someone you thought was a friend when you're too young to understand or stop what's happening.

Perhaps if we used more emotive language such as decomposition sentences might be lengthened. When you take a heinous crime like this and wrap it up in words like "manslaughter" or "obstruction of justice" you suddenly have vast numbers of people ready to defend such perverted sentencing.

PeakOutput · 17-01-2008 07:25PM

Boggles wrote: »

The Tabloids don't have to spin how gruesome the details in the case were.

yet they did nonetheless. and im not disputing what did or didnt happen to the body after it was dumped my point is it is irrelevant.

maybe im severely desensitised but on a scale of gruesomeness nothing about this case would rate it particularly highly imo.

if the victim was an adult (even maybe a female adult) i dare say that the apparent outrage people here are expressing would be almost non existant.

Dinter · 17-01-2008 07:28PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

yet they did nonetheless. and im not disputing what did or didnt happen to the body after it was dumped my point is it is irrelevant.

maybe im severely desensitised but on a scale of gruesomeness nothing about this case would rate it particularly highly imo.

if the victim was an adult (even maybe a female adult) i dare say that the apparent outrage people here are expressing would be almost non existant.

Did you serve in Nam are something and came back as a dehumanised war vet? Wtf. Of course there'd be outrage.

I'd hate to be a person that could be unaffected by the death of a child. Obviously you've no young relatives.

Crazy Christ · 17-01-2008 07:33PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

no1 is making excuses for the criminals. the only people making excuses are the ones using it as an excuse to say he deserves to die this is reason to top himself this is why he should never be left alone.

the problem is not with wayne o'donoghue although he is getting the brunt of it. if you have a problem with his sentence then your problem is with the judge.

what sentence do you think someone who goes threw a pedestrian crossing without looking and knocks down a pedestrian by accident should get? because from my understanding they can be sentenced to manslaughter aswell. manslaughter from its definition(that iv read of it in the legal discussions thread) accepts that what happened was an accident with no malice or intent.

someone who ACCIDENTLY kills someone(be it child or adult or granny or gandhi) does not deserve more than 3 years in prison imo. you can say oh but he killed a child etc etc etc yes he did but it was an accident.

as i said already there will never be agreement between the two sides as one uses their heart(not their balls mairt) and the other uses their head. i cant remember if i said this already but you cant run a country with your heart

perfect post

Boggles · 17-01-2008 07:33PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

maybe im severely desensitised but on a scale of gruesomeness nothing about this case would rate it particularly highly imo.

Doctor Lecter, Is that you?

PeakOutput · 17-01-2008 07:35PM

Dinter wrote: »

Secondly that would not be classified as an accident no more than O'Donoghues crime was. Manslaughter and accidental death are miles apart legally.

while i dislike quoting things that i do not know the origin off, from the legal forum

MANSLAUGHTER - The unlawful killing of a human being without malice or premeditation, either express or implied; distinguished from murder, which requires malicious intent. The distinctions between manslaughter and murder, consists in the following: In the former, though the act which occasions the death be unlawful, or likely to be attended with bodily mischief, yet the malice, either express or implied, which is the very essence of murder, is presumed to be wanting in manslaughter. It also differs from murder in this, that there can be no accessaries before the fact, there having been no time for premeditation. Manslaugbter is voluntary, when it happens upon a sudden heat; or involuntary, when it takes place in the commission of some unlawful act.

if its wrong correct me but from that definition manslaughter is accidental. the only difference between the wod case and running a red light and hitting someone is that the former(from my reading of it i cant stress enough im not a legal expert) is voluntary and the latter is involuntary. they are both manslaughter. also please dont misconstrue the word voluntary to mean the death was intended.

also to the person who quoted me i didnt say they broke a red light. the death is however an accident.

also i used to work in an industry were i would get quite deep knowledge of a wide range of car accidents and i can tell you that in my experience it is very rare someone gets a jail sentence for causing death due to their negligence in a car accident(be it breaking red lights or not stopping at a stop sign etc etc)

the whole point of the justice system is to be objective the whole point of the media is to make money they do this by personalising the story. this is why public opinion very often seems to be at odds with legal opinion. but an objective legal system is the only one that can operate in a civilised society

PeakOutput · 17-01-2008 07:40PM

Dinter wrote: »

Did you serve in Nam are something and came back as a dehumanised war vet? Wtf. Of course there'd be outrage.

I'd hate to be a person that could be unaffected by the death of a child. Obviously you've no young relatives.

i didnt say i wasnt affected i said i didnt think it was gruesome. in fact how you could gather that from what i said is beyond me. my grandfathers death was not a gruesome one it still affected me deeply of course. jesus words in the mouth or what.

and no im not dehumanised but I CAN dissassociate myself from tradgedies that had nothing to do with me so i can use my REASON and JUDGEMENT.

Dinter · 17-01-2008 09:12PM

That is wrong.
The simplest way to describe it is that manslaughter is the UNLAWFUL killing of someone where the perpetrator had no intent beforehand to kill that person. The Act is the same as the Act committed in Murder with the caveat that the perpetrator did not premeditate the results of his actions. It is not in ANY WAY treated as being an accident.
If this was an accident he would not have been sentenced at all.
You mention that in your experience in the car insurance industry very few people get prosecuted for killing people with their cars. Obviously a lot of these would be due to accidents as against death by dangerous driving for example. Death by dangerous driving carries severe penalties and would be thoroughly prosecuted.
My problem is not with O’Donoghue at all. It’s the lenient sentence I take issue with. He has served his time and I would not take issue with that. I just wish he’d been sentenced to more of it.

Sam Vimes · 17-01-2008 09:58PM

Boggles wrote: »

I like to think of myself of having free will, something that thankfully I don't share with bacteria.

i said nothing about free will. i was talking about the instinct of self preservation

Boggles wrote: »

So picking up the phone and dialing 999 or getting him to hospital suggests a much higher thought process than what he eventually ended up doing???

not what he eventually ended up doing but definitely what he did at the start. his survival instinct kicked in and he ran away. by the time his brain kicked back in it was too late to save the kid but not too late to save himself so he tried to do that. this was his mistake

getting help is the obvious logical thing to do in that situation. its what a calm, collected person would do because its the correct course of action. if he had done that he probably wouldn't have gone to jail at all. so why do you think trying to hide it involved a higher thought process?

Boggles wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM

that's pretty amazing. i retract my deer statement. but do you not think that doing that involves more intelligence than simply running away and saving themselves?

seamus · 17-01-2008 10:50PM

Dinter wrote: »

That is wrong. The simplest way to describe it is that manslaughter is the UNLAWFUL killing of someone where the perpetrator had no intent beforehand to kill that person. The Act is the same as the Act committed in Murder with the caveat that the perpetrator did not premeditate the results of his actions. It is not in ANY WAY treated as being an accident.

Kind of depends. As I found out recently, if the perpetrator intends to cause serious harm to the victim and the victim subsequently dies, that's murder. You don't have to intend to kill them.

Manslaughter will often be brought in cases of gross negligence that are technically "accidents" but any idiot could have avoided them. For example if I'm holding a shotgun, pointing it at someone and chatting away to them but accidentally blow their head off. I'm not sure if our law distingushes between voluntary manslaughter (where the perp intended to cause harm) and involuntary manslaughter (gross negligence causing death such as my example).

PeakOutput · 17-01-2008 11:08PM

snyper wrote: »

Mr Nally shot a Nacker that robbed his house more times than he had hot meals and he spent more time in Jail.

deservedly so

This lover boy Kills a boy dumps his body, and done god knows what else.. the semen in the boys hand may be a clue . . and gets 3 years?

watch the prime time programme on the subject and you will very quickly realise how the semen is a non issue

so i understand alot of the way the legal system works

3 of my mates are in the middle of their kings inn exams so clearly im qualified to comment and i feel the legal system generally works fine

edit; actually sorry im just getting narky now that im tired im gonna try and not reply in this thread as theres very little to add

AckwelFoley · 17-01-2008 11:22PM

3 of my mates are in the middle of their kings inn exams so clearly im qualified to comment and i feel the legal system generally works fine

Well then i challange you, if its "fine" where is the Justice in a3 years in Jail for the life of an 11 year old boy and a broken family?

Where?

It wasn't me! · 18-01-2008 12:01AM

For those who complain about sentence leniency, do you complain that fines for misdemeanors are too low, and that other crimes should all be far more harshly sentenced? If not, why not? Or is it the notion that "He killed A LITTLE BOY!!! The murderin' baxtard!"? And do you then ignore the fact that every crime has to be treated utterly dispassionately by the criminal justice system, regardless of who died, or what age they were? It's a little trying hearing people moan about this, when those who actually dealt legally with the case are the ones who remained dispassionate and handed down the sentence in accordance with an all-encompassing view of the actual facts, not the libellous suppositions and opinions of those utterly unqualified. I don't pretend to be capable of judging and sentencing in a criminal trial, which is why we have a justice system, where people have devoted their lives to it, and those are the people in whom we place our trust. What else would you have? Lynch mobs were referred to earlier, and that he should have gotten more punishment in prison, and where is the justice in that? People have complained that there's no justice in the sentence that was handed down, and personally, I'd like to know what qualifies them to say that, over Judge Carney, who's been a High Court judge for nigh on seventeen years now. Either we have and accept a legal system, or we don't, and who would prefer that? The Irish system is relatively fair, giving emphasis to rehabilitation in prison systems, as opposed to crass punishment, which really serves little good.

Sam Vimes · 18-01-2008 12:08AM

snyper wrote: »

Well then i challange you, if its "fine" where is the Justice in a3 years in Jail for the life of an 11 year old boy and a broken family?

Where?

i think he was being sarcastic

O'Donoghue Not Guilty of Murder

Comments